change

name	change
description	Change the behavior of existing code — story-driven by default, or --issue N for a GitHub bug fix. Test-first, full verification, code review.
argument-hint	[description | story-id | --issue N]
context	fork

Change Skill — Behavior Change on Existing Code

One lane for changing what existing code does: adding to or altering observable behavior (story-driven), or fixing a reported bug (--issue N). For changes that must not alter behavior, use /refactor. For a tiny low-risk edit (≤3 files, <150 lines, no auth/API/persistence), use /vibe.

Usage

/change "add confidence scores to extraction"   # story-driven enhancement
/change E2-S3                                    # implement an existing story
/change --issue 42                               # fix GitHub issue #42

• Description or story ID → story-driven mode (Steps S1–S7). The change is traceable to a story with acceptance criteria.
• --issue N → issue mode (Steps I1–I9). The change is a test-first bug fix that branches, reproduces, fixes, and opens a PR.

Both modes are test-first: no production code changes until a test that captures the desired behavior (or reproduces the bug) has been written and observed failing.

/goal tip (optional unattended iteration): On Claude Code v2.1.139+ you can let /goal drive this single bounded session toward a verifiable condition — e.g. /goal pytest exits 0 and lint is clean, or stop after N turns (issue mode: /goal the failing repro test now passes and lint is clean, or stop after N turns). Always include the "or stop after N turns" safety clause, and phrase conditions so each turn must produce fresh evidence (re-run the tests, show the exit code) to avoid false-positive completion. /goal's evaluator (Haiku) only judges what is in the transcript — it does not run tools or read files — so the proof (test output, exit codes) must be printed in the conversation, not routed through subagents. That makes /goal suitable for this small lane only. Do not use /goal inside /auto: it is single-session and would conflict with session chaining, the GAN evaluator, and sprint contracts. /goal does not replace the evaluator/sprint-contract gate.

---

Story-driven mode (default)

Step S1 — Ensure a Story Exists

Every behavior change must have a story file in specs/stories/ before implementation begins.

• If a story ID was provided (e.g. E2-S3): read specs/stories/E2-S3.md and confirm it has acceptance criteria.
• If a description was provided: check for a matching story. If none exists, create specs/stories/{next-id}.md with Title, Problem statement, Acceptance criteria (numbered, each testable), and Out of scope (explicit).

Do not proceed until acceptance criteria are written and confirmed.

Step S2 — Impact Assessment

Read the current codebase to understand what is affected:

• Brownfield map: if specs/brownfield/ exists, read codebase-map.md, architecture-map.md, test-map.md, risk-map.md, and change-strategy.md before assessing impact. If this is a non-trivial existing codebase and the brownfield map is missing, recommend /brownfield first.
• Symbol navigation: use specs/brownfield/symbol-map.md to locate the affected symbols (signatures with Lstart-Lend anchors). For files flagged in skeletons/, read the .skel.md first and then only the relevant symbol slice via Read(offset, limit) — never whole-file-read a skeleton-flagged file.
• Seam plan: if specs/brownfield/seams-<goal-slug>.md exists for this change's goal (or the user named a seam), read it and prefer its top-ranked seam (extend/wrap/introduce-adapter action) as the cut-point for the change. Note in the impact assessment which seam you adopted or why you rejected it.
• Coverage preflight — REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: checking-coverage-before-change for every symbol in the planned diff. COVERED → run the listed oracle tests before and after each edit. UNCOVERED → pinning-down-behavior (or sprouting-instead-of-editing) before touching the symbol. If structural cleanup is needed alongside the behavior change, split commits per keeping-refactors-pure.
• Migration preflight — REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: checking-migration-safety when the planned diff touches ORM models, migrations/, schema files, serializers/DTOs, or message shapes. Destructive/transform schema changes go expand-contract; the contract step never ships in this change.
• Dependency bumps — REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: upgrading-dependencies when the diff touches a package manifest or lockfile. The bump lands in its own commit, never mixed with this change's code.
• Risk-heavy changes default to a flag. If the change touches authentication, authorization, payments, or data migration paths, put the new behavior behind a feature flag (config or env toggle) so old and new paths can run side by side and cutover is reversible without a deploy. For critical-path services with real traffic, run both paths and compare (GitHub Scientist pattern — see step 6). Plan flag removal as explicit follow-up work — a flag with no removal plan is permanent complexity.

Document this assessment before writing any code.

Step S3 — Consult Architecture Docs

Read specs/design/ for relevant architecture decisions and .claude/skills/code-gen/references/architecture.md for layering rules. Confirm the planned implementation stays within the correct layer (new type → types/, new query → repository/, …). Do not shortcut layers.

Step S4 — Write the Failing Test(s) First

For each acceptance criterion, write or update the test before the implementation, and observe it fail (red):

• If an existing test covers the old behavior and the behavior is changing: update it to assert the new expected behavior, then run it and confirm it fails against the current code. Add a comment noting which AC it covers.
• If no test covers the criterion: add a new test and confirm it fails for the right reason (feature missing — not a typo).

A test that passes before the change is not exercising the new behavior. Changing a test to pass rather than fixing the code is never acceptable — the test is the specification.

Step S5 — Implement Changes

Modify the existing implementation files until the red tests go green. Do not create parallel implementations.

• Modify in place. No _v2 function alongside the original.
• If a function signature changes, update all call sites before committing.
• If an API contract changes, update the schema definition and all serializers.
• Keep changes scoped to what the acceptance criteria require.

Run the full test suite — all tests must pass. Then run the project's lint and type checks (npm run lint / ruff check ., and tsc --noEmit / mypy .) and fix anything the change introduced — don't leave it for the reviewer to catch a diff that already has the error.

If specs/test_artefacts/ exists, update test-cases.md and test-data/ to reflect the changed acceptance criteria — keep the test plan in sync with the actual state of the stories. If Playwright E2E specs exist in e2e/, update the affected files to match the new behavior.

Step S6 — Review

Spawn the clean-code-reviewer agent (harness-provided: .claude/agents/clean-code-reviewer.md; recognized by the review-on-stop Stop hook) on the full diff. If the diff touches authentication, authorization, secrets, user input handling, or data persistence, also spawn the security-reviewer agent (run both in parallel in a single message).

Findings: BLOCK must be fixed; WARN should be fixed (document if deferring); INFO optional. Maximum 3 retry cycles for BLOCK findings — if any remain after 3 cycles, stop and report.

Step S7 — Update Story File

Add an implementation status section to the story file:

## Implementation Status

Status: COMPLETE
Implemented: {date}
Files changed: {list of files}
Tests added/updated: {list of test files}
AC coverage:
  - AC1: covered by test {test name}
  - AC2: covered by test {test name}

---

Issue mode (--issue N)

Step I1 — Read the Issue

gh issue view {n}

Read the full issue: title, body, labels, linked issues, comments. Extract the specific failure, any reproduction steps, and any stated acceptance criteria. If the issue is too vague to reproduce, stop and request clarification (gh issue comment {n} --body "..."). Do not proceed with a vague issue.

Step I2 — Systematic Debugging

Before writing any fix, invoke superpowers:systematic-debugging to diagnose the root cause. This prevents jumping to conclusions and informs both the failing test (I4) and the fix (I5).

Step I3 — Create a Branch

git checkout -b fix/{short-description}

Base the name on the issue title — short, lowercase, hyphenated (e.g. fix/order-total-rounding).

Step I4 — Write a Failing Test, Verify It Fails

Before touching production code, write a test that directly exercises the reported failure. It must live in the affected module's test directory, have a name describing the bug, and fail when run against the current code. Run it in isolation and confirm the red state with the expected error. If it passes, it does not reproduce the bug — revise it.

Step I5 — Fix the Root Cause

Read the affected code, identify the root cause (not the symptom), and make the minimal change to fix it. Do not refactor unrelated code, add features, or change behavior outside the issue's scope.

Step I6 — Run the Full Test Suite

Run the affected module's tests and the full suite. Every previously passing test must still pass. Do not comment out or delete tests to make the suite pass.

Step I7 — Lint and Type Checks

Run the project's lint and type checks (npm run lint, mypy, tsc --noEmit, …) and fix anything introduced by the change.

Step I8 — Review

Spawn the clean-code-reviewer agent (harness-provided: .claude/agents/clean-code-reviewer.md; recognized by the review-on-stop Stop hook) on the diff. If the fix touches authentication, authorization, secrets, user input handling, or data persistence, also spawn the security-reviewer agent (run both in parallel in a single message). Resolve BLOCK findings (max 3 cycles).

Step I9 — Commit and Open a PR

git add {changed files}
git commit -m "fix: {description} (closes #{n})"
gh pr create --title "fix: {description}" --body "..."

Stage only the files changed for this fix. The PR body must include Closes #{n}, the root cause, the fix approach, and confirmation that the reproducing test now passes.

---

Distinction from /refactor

Dimension	/change	/refactor
Behavior change	Yes — intentional	No — must be zero
Requires story / issue	Yes (story or --issue N)	No
Tests	Written/updated red-first to match new behavior	Must pass unchanged
API contracts	May change	Must not change

If you are not changing observable behavior, use /refactor instead.

---

Output

Artefact	Purpose
specs/stories/{id}.md (story mode)	Story with AC and implementation status
fix/{description} branch + PR (issue mode)	Review-ready change set with Closes #{n}
Failing test (now passing)	Proof the new behavior / fix is exercised
Modified source + updated tests	The change and its verification

---

Gotchas

• No story / vague issue. Never implement without written acceptance criteria or a reproducible issue. Write the story or request clarification first.
• Test does not actually fail first. A test that passes before the change is not exercising it. Verify the red state in both modes.
• Updating tests to pass instead of fixing code. Tests define expected behavior; a failing test after a change means the implementation is wrong — unless the AC explicitly changes that behavior.
• Fixing symptoms, not root cause (issue mode). A null check that hides an upstream data problem is not a fix. Trace to the actual source.
• Scope creep. Stick to the AC / issue. Open new stories or issues for adjacent work rather than bundling it.
• Not updating API contracts. If a response shape changes, update the TypeScript interface or Pydantic model, the serializer, the OpenAPI spec, and any clients. Partial updates cause runtime failures.
• Creating parallel paths. Adding get_extraction_v2() alongside get_extraction() is dead code. Modify in place and update callers.
• Incomplete staging (issue mode). Stage every file that is part of the fix; a partial commit leaves the branch broken.